Posted on 10/19/2010 8:16:19 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
Lawmakers in at least 14 states are collaborating on proposed legislation to deny U.S. citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, according to lawmakers, including the sponsor of Arizona's 2010 law targeting illegal immigration.
"We're taking a leadership role on things that need to be fixed in America. We can't get Congress to do it," Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce, of Mesa, said today. "It's a national work group so that we have model legislation that we know will be successful, that meets the constitutional criteria."
The efforts by the state legislators come amid calls to change the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which grants automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. Supporters cite costs to taxpayers for services provided to illegal immigrants and their children.
Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, the founder of a national group of legislators critical of illegal immigration, said the 14th Amendment "greatly incentives foreign invaders to violate our border and our laws." He had a news conference today in Harrisburg, Pa., on the multistate endeavor.
The effort could run afoul of the language in the 14th Amendment and lead to a court battle over the constitutionality of the law. But Metcalfe said providing birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants is an "ongoing distortion and twisting" of the amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at wctrib.com ...
Idiot presstitutes simply do not care enough to actually READ the 14th Amendment, and get this point straight in their heads.
Rep. Daryl Metcalfe has it exactly right - insisting that the 14th Amendment "grants automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants" is an "ongoing distortion and twisting" of the amendment.
It does no such thing.
Bout time!
I agree that it was not the intent of the 14th to grant citizenship to interlopers; it was meant to protect the rights of liberated slaves and their offspring.
I hope more states join this effort.
Fixing one wrong should not have created the current crisis that threatens to overwhelm the law-abiders.
Imagine that...some states actually want the laws enforced and obeyed...a radical idea...the radical part being those who will say enforcing the law and obeying the law is the ‘radical’ portion.
Seems to me that individual states could not legally determine national citizenship.
I wonder about that too.
i agrre. i don’t think the states can do this as much as i want the federal government’s abuse of power and the constitution ended. on another thought, why do ustates need federal authority to call out the state national guard? andwould putting us troops on the mexican border be a violation of the Posse Comitatus act? of course if you think the influx of illegal mexican immigrants (10% of the mexican population is in the us) constitutes an invasion, as i do then it’s national defense but congress would have to act.
All things the new Congress needs to address in January, with backing from the states.
I’m all for strong states’ rights, but there are some things that are clearly the responsibility of the feds — like citizenship and national security.
That’s a good point, but it also seems that the federal government can’t require people to buy health insurance ... or register a machine gun for that matter. But, that hasn’t stopped them from doing exactly that ... and I guess it’s time for the States to play ball.
While my personal opinion is that anchor babies should not be granted automatic citizenship, the 14th says “all persons born ...” It makes no restrictions in scope. We had open immigration when the 14th was written. There was no such thing as illegal immigration.
Those individuals who are classified as illegal today likely would have been classified as legal back when the 14th was adopted. Changes in immigration law can’t amend the Constitution.
And if that is the case, how can Congress or a State revoke a right granted by the Constitution? I think it will be difficult to revoke a right granted under the Constitution solely because of a change in immigration policy.
But again, I think it is unfair to our citizens that anchor babies are granted citizenship.
They may be trying to address citizenship within the state in order to lessen the demand for social services and also laws that require in-state tuition for children of illegals.
This is a serious subject for many states. Those anchor children are a major drain on our resources.
Frankly, I like Mexicans. Despite the ugliness along the border, most are polite, respectful, and hard-working. I meet many Mexican families at our church food bank. They often have large families, and the children born here are eligible for all social services. They make good neighbors and would make good and loyal citizens — BUT THEY BROKE THE LAW by coming here illegally and should pay a price for it.
And their kids should not be awarded citizenship as a result of the parents’ crime.
One could argue that the way they comport themselves indicates that they do not consider themselves "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and therefore, the sentence does not apply to them.
This is flatly and without question unconstitutional. And it ticks me off when precious money and time is wasted on things like this that accomplish nothing. Give me my tax dollars back for the cost of wasting time on this. I can use it a lot wiser than any state can.
Let the State laws assert that to be the case, and no doubt the Federal employees in black robes will want to issue an edict on the nature and limits of it’s own employees power.
The States should have the final say on this issue, unless and until congress passes a uniform law naturalizing everyone who was born here.
The Federal court should not be involved, except in disputes between the Federal Executive and Federal Legislator.
IIRC, the strategy has something to do with the birth certificate which is issued by the state.
“Seems to me that individual states could not legally determine national citizenship.”
States issue the birth certificates. The only job that vital statistics do is to count births etc.. The States do not have the authority to issue National citizenship, which is what the issuance of a bc does. As long as no bc’s are given out it will be fine. Parents who want one will have to show citizenship. OR they may put on a disclaimer, parents not citizens OR not a 14th amendment citizen. It will eventually go to the Supreme Ct.
Gman
“it ticks me off when precious money and time is wasted on things like this “
My State Congressman makes 10,000 a year. They draft legislation before the session starts on their days off. Do you have any idea how much illegal immigration is costing US taxpayers?
THIS (the mis-interpretation of the 14th Amendment Language) is KEY to removing ONE of the rewards for law-breakers. Sneaking in and dropping a baby (which then is instantly a family-member, aka, U.S. Citizen) is one of the WORST court-sanctioned violations of the Framers’ intent that we have today.
That's correct, but you left out the "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" next words in the sentence.
That changes the meaning, where foreigners' babies are NOT "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", in that they are STILL foreign nationals (and protected by law of that foreign country), and THIS is what has been trampled. If you are LEGALLY visiting a foreign country, and are STILL subject to arrest under their laws, your ALLEGIANCE is to your home of origin, and you are NOT a citizen there, either. The situation where you sneak into a country and somehow instantly gain all that country's benefits of citizenship is pretty unique to the USA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.